Re: [Wikimedia-l] The new narrowed focus by WMF
On Oct 20, 2012 6:36 PM, "Mono" wrote: > > The WMF should spend less time thinking about what to do and more time > doing it. That means they can't do everything under the moon. But everyone > knows that big things need to happen. > Well said. That is precisely why these changes are being proposed: taking some things off the table will help us get shit done. It's not the only part of being able to more rapidly ship new products, by far, but being clear about our scope as an organzation will go a long way. On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 5:01 AM, Виктория wrote: > > > This proposal reminds me of "management buyout", which Wikipedia defines as > > "form of acquisition where a company's existing managers acquire a large > > part or all of the company from either the parent company or from the > > private owners". > > > > There always been ambiguity to the roles of WMF - does it have right to > > interfere with Community decisions, especially highly controversial ones? > > In what form it should communicate with highly dispersed, varied community. > > I cannot say that I completely agreed with "5 year plan", but at least it > > have given a clear directions and even (some, not all) achievable goals: > > attraction of new editors, including women, helping the Global South to > > access free knowledge. Of course, not all initiatives were working, but at > > least the was movement in the right direction. > > > > I understand that it wasn't easy for the WMF employees, but we all hope > > that working for a non-profit organisation is not just a day, 9 to 5 job > > (which are disappearing fast anyway). And now the management found how to > > end all this - curtail awkward, highly demanding activities on the ground > > in less civilised world and concentrate on relatively easy, structured > > work, which can be done in sunny San Francisco - engineering and "grant > > making". > > > > I cannot say anything against engineering, this is a cornerstone, although > > I cannot see how management, Legal etc. engagement with "people on the > > ground" have interfered with programmers work and how "refocusing" will > > help to create Visual Editor. My worry is about "grant making", forgive > > me, I am not a native speaker, so I can just guess that this means "grant > > distributing". > > > > When the chapters started appearing, I thought they will be local WMF, > > which will build bridges between WMF and local communities. This is not > > what happened. I don't want to go into details as to why, but Fir WMF had > > already withdrawn support for the Chapter fundraising through the banner, > > and now if I understand correctly the Chapters re supposed to fend for > > themselves completely - they want to do it anyway, but this is a different > > story. > > > > So WMF will collect the money and then will distribute it by the means > > unknown. As a former member of the Grant Committee I can say that the > > current process is not very efficient and there is no alternative proposed. > > And if WMF focus on distributing grants instead of helping directly, it > > will become incredibly difficult for people with no experience in a highly > > specific task of grant-writing (=community members) to get their > > initiatives off the ground, and the money will go to third parties. During > > the "restructuring time" WMF will stop supporting really working things > > such as Wikimania, leaving it to fend for itself, just like chapters. > > > > I wonder at what point European Chapters, lead by highly efficient German , > > will realise that they don't need WMF, buy servers and fork. > > > > I can only hope that the Board will not agree with this proposal and WMF > > will find some other way to reduce work-related stress. > > > > Victoria > > ___ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] The new narrowed focus by WMF
I find this rather frightening, as it implies that the programs undertaken by the Wikimedia Foundation recently were not successful and wasted funds. This is open to debate, but if these programs were successful in 'editor engagement' why would we get rid of them? (It seems like they weren't.) Meanwhile, the proposal shown seems to favor product development. But the funds being spent on extremely basic improvements that other top websites did years ago is alarming too. It seems like the WMF needs to streamline development for rapid deployment. Finish the visual editor, design a new interface for reading and such, and get people editing and uploading with an awareness campaign. Google is perfecting Wikipedia's purpose (see https://www.google.com/?q=paul%20ryanon the right). The WMF should spend less time thinking about what to do and more time doing it. That means they can't do everything under the moon. But everyone knows that big things need to happen. On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 5:01 AM, Виктория wrote: > This proposal reminds me of "management buyout", which Wikipedia defines as > "form of acquisition where a company's existing managers acquire a large > part or all of the company from either the parent company or from the > private owners". > > There always been ambiguity to the roles of WMF - does it have right to > interfere with Community decisions, especially highly controversial ones? > In what form it should communicate with highly dispersed, varied community. > I cannot say that I completely agreed with "5 year plan", but at least it > have given a clear directions and even (some, not all) achievable goals: > attraction of new editors, including women, helping the Global South to > access free knowledge. Of course, not all initiatives were working, but at > least the was movement in the right direction. > > I understand that it wasn't easy for the WMF employees, but we all hope > that working for a non-profit organisation is not just a day, 9 to 5 job > (which are disappearing fast anyway). And now the management found how to > end all this - curtail awkward, highly demanding activities on the ground > in less civilised world and concentrate on relatively easy, structured > work, which can be done in sunny San Francisco - engineering and "grant > making". > > I cannot say anything against engineering, this is a cornerstone, although > I cannot see how management, Legal etc. engagement with "people on the > ground" have interfered with programmers work and how "refocusing" will > help to create Visual Editor. My worry is about "grant making", forgive > me, I am not a native speaker, so I can just guess that this means "grant > distributing". > > When the chapters started appearing, I thought they will be local WMF, > which will build bridges between WMF and local communities. This is not > what happened. I don't want to go into details as to why, but Fir WMF had > already withdrawn support for the Chapter fundraising through the banner, > and now if I understand correctly the Chapters re supposed to fend for > themselves completely - they want to do it anyway, but this is a different > story. > > So WMF will collect the money and then will distribute it by the means > unknown. As a former member of the Grant Committee I can say that the > current process is not very efficient and there is no alternative proposed. > And if WMF focus on distributing grants instead of helping directly, it > will become incredibly difficult for people with no experience in a highly > specific task of grant-writing (=community members) to get their > initiatives off the ground, and the money will go to third parties. During > the "restructuring time" WMF will stop supporting really working things > such as Wikimania, leaving it to fend for itself, just like chapters. > > I wonder at what point European Chapters, lead by highly efficient German , > will realise that they don't need WMF, buy servers and fork. > > I can only hope that the Board will not agree with this proposal and WMF > will find some other way to reduce work-related stress. > > Victoria > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copy and paste
On 10/17/12 10:26 PM, James Heilman wrote:
We really need a plagiarism detection tool so that we can make sure our
sources are not simply "copy and pastes" of older versions of Wikipedia.
Today I was happily improving our article on pneumonia as I have a day off.
I came across a recommendation that baby's should be suction at birth to
decrease their risk of pneumonia with a {{cn}} tag. So I went to Google
books and up came a book that supported it perfectly. And than I noticed
that this book supported the previous and next few sentences as well. It
also supported a number of other sections we had in the article but was
missing our references. The book was selling for $340 a copy. Our articles
have improved a great deal since 2007 and yet school are buying copy edited
version of Wikipedia from 5 years ago. The bit about suctioning babies at
birth is was wrong and I have corrected it. I think we need to get this
news out. Support Wikipedia and use the latest version online!
Further details / discuss are here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Can_we_still_use_books_as_refs.3F
This situation was entirely predictable, even if its particular
circumstances weren't. I ran into something of the sort as far back as
2003. I have long since lost track of references to the incident; it had
to do with literary biographies of long dead authors, and thus much less
critical than in a medical article. The broader question goes well
beyond simple matters of plagiarism or copyright infringement. The
passages will often be short enough that a fair dealing claim is
available, and the moral right to be credited for one's work has no
meaningful legal enforcement to back it up. To those familiar with these
things that right isn't even controversial.
The disputed version in this case is a mere five years old. Over a
longer time that could encompass the entire validity period of a
copyright we could easily see such a thing bounce back and forth many
times over without ever being discovered. A bot could do some of the
search for infringing material; it may even look through archived and
archaic versions of a document. I believe that at some point any such
processes reach a limit. That broader solution will need to be more
imaginative than more police work.
Ray
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
